Snappy newsletters. Simple Facebook sharing. Spirited comments. Sweet features are waiting… GET THEM NOW!

Our Dirty Drone War Must End

It may be creating more terrorists than it's killing: Gary Kamiya

By Evann Gastaldo,  Newser Staff

Posted Feb 20, 2012 1:13 PM CST

(Newser) – Before 9/11, if the US president had announced that the government was going to "play God, reaching down from our high-tech heaven to kill whoever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want"—including US citizens, without a trial—the news would have been met with uproar. But that is indeed what we are doing today with our drones, "and nobody cares," writes Gary Kamiya in an extensive piece on Salon. As long as the government kills for the good of national security, the majority of Americans apparently have no problem with it, Kamiya writes. But how did this come about? He traces the shift in attitude back to the war in Afghanistan—which he calls "justified" in the wake of 9/11. Once the US established a precedent of killing Taliban members wherever they were found in Afghanistan or Pakistan, "it was a small step to killing bad guys in Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya."

You won't find many critics of this dirty war, which also includes special forces operations like the one that took out Osama bin Laden, because it's "cheap, out of sight, and involve[s] low casualties." But though it's tactically effective, "it is strategically disastrous." We have descended to the terrorists' level, and "in a fight against terrorism, which ultimately is a fight for hearts and minds, this is a losing proposition." This endless war could lead to "blowback" in any number of ways—destabilizing the governments in the places we're fighting, or simply causing more people in those places to turn to terrorism as revenge. And then there's the assassination of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. "If it’s OK to kill Awlaki today, why shouldn’t it be OK to kill some foreign scientist we deem dangerous to our national security tomorrow? By embracing the law of the jungle, we have opened the door to Hell." Kamiya's full essay is worth a read.

In an Oct. 25, 2007 file photo a Predator drone unmanned aerial vehicle takes off on a U.S. Customs Border Patrol mission from Fort Huachuca, Ariz.
In an Oct. 25, 2007 file photo a Predator drone unmanned aerial vehicle takes off on a U.S. Customs Border Patrol mission from Fort Huachuca, Ariz.   (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin/file)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
My TakeCLICK BELOW TO VOTE
2%
9%
2%
47%
5%
35%
To report an error on this story, notify our editors.
COMMENTS
Showing 3 of 69 comments
NoddaAndYou
Feb 21, 2012 4:30 PM CST
So what's the difference between sending actual troops to take out these targets, and sending a drone? I agree that additional confirmation and verification of targets is not only warranted, but desperately needed, but that does not negate the fact that a lot of these targets are valid. It seems as though we are arguing over the delivery method, more than the act itself?
pjp1414
Feb 21, 2012 9:43 AM CST
ooorrrr.... this was what was planned to happen.  Set a precedent, then distort the criteria for that precedent to do whatever you want.  so it goes: 1. 9/11 2. label terrorists the bad guys 3. go after bad guys/terrorists 4. rewrite definition of terrorist (anyone paying attention to what FBI considers terrorist like actions?)
Bartmaeus
Feb 21, 2012 7:11 AM CST
If the Peacemaker in chief decides to intervene in the sovereign affairs of a state that poses no threat to the USA (like Libya or Egypt), or if he decides to bomb targets within the territory of any given state, then that is his prerogative as the Democrat's President. Demonstrations are only against Republican presidents.
 

NEWS FROM OUR PARTNERS
Other Sites We Like:   24/7 Wall St.   |   BuzzFeed   |   Cracked   |   Timelines   |   POPSUGAR Tech   |   Business Insider   |   HuffPost Entertainment   |   NewsOne